Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Floyd trivia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was This seems to have overran, though I am seeing a clear consensus to Keep Computerjoe 's talk 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd trivia
I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:


 * 1) Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
 * 2) If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
 * 3) Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete i think some of the information may be relevant in other pages, but as much as I love Pink Floyd, I don't see the need for a free-standing article. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The information in the article is both important and interesting. It is possible that this is not the best use of the word "trivia" and the article should be renamed or reorganized, but that doesn't mean the article gets deleted. Additionally, it doesn't appear that the nominator made an attempt to seriously evaluate the article before nominating it. I don't agree with nominating an article based on a word in its title. Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The nomination pretty much says everything. This page is certainly an indiscriminate list of information, and importance is definitely an issue. I think we can put this article in the "fancruft" category. -- Kicking222 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't really need its own separate "trivia" article. Wickethewok 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename - split from already large Pink Floyd, seems no reason to delete material on the basis of the article title containing the word trivia, but propose rename to Cultural references to Pink Floyd in order not to offend the sensibilities of the nominator. I agree with the sentiments, but it will all end in tears. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename per angus in order to clarify the worth of this article. Many of the things in this article are not trivial, especially the items in the miscellaneous section, and the info about cycles and synchronicities.  I understand wanting to divide it up among the respective albums, but it is nice to have everything here in one place.  However, some of the more speculative pieces, such as Bill Clinton's dog's name being a reference to the song of the same name, should be removed or cited. --Joelmills 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename, reorganize, maybe trim a bit, but deletion seems overly drastic. Certainly there is a great deal of potential interest here, though I would be the first to admit it's poorly organized and some of it could go. PurplePlatypus 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion is too drastic, the article is a great start and quite informative.Siraf 04:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article has a purpose and an interest. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Merging would only serve to lengthen the already long original article. Sfacets 05:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Objection to this article on the ground that "trivia" breaches Wiki's NPOV and "importance" values is specious. I agree that some of the material is too trivial to include, but certainly the cycles and synchs deserve to be kept.Grimhim 10:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Speculative items need citations. Alot of the content is valid and should be merged with Pink Floyd.
 * Strong Keep (but rename it if it's such a big deal) - much of this information is precisely the kind of thing which people look to the Wikipedia for, but which most users consider too trivial to include in the main article, which is already bursting at the seams. That doesn't necessarily mean that the information is in any way trivial to someone looking for information about the band, such as synchronicities and the band's cultural influences, nor does it imply things too trivial to include in the Wikipedia. Much information which is "uncited" are direct observations - what citation is needed for mentioning a Dark Side of the Moon poster in a television series, clearly observable to anyone watching the episode? - dharm a bum 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'm certain this article was split to avoid an overly long article at Pink Floyd. Perhaps a rename to Pink Floyd facts or a more suitable less-trivial name is in order. - Longhair 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this should be seen as associated to the main Pink Floyd and linked from there. -- Beardo 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is; like all the rest of the Pink Floyd sub-articles (Publius Enigma, etc.) it's linked in the large template box. - dharm a bum 04:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Merging it with the main article would make it too large. Better to keep and trim.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.